Off the top of my head, you could: continue to charge inheritance tax on the land, resulting in 40% going into public ownership, and rewild the now-publicly-owned land.
mindlesscrollyparrot
joined 1 year ago
I think you should review your thoughts on this, because some of your examples are not actually possible.
For example, you say that an asylum seeker could go to a police station once in the country. That implies that they didn't, in fact, enter the country "regularly".
You've also implied that the asylum seekers are going on the run. Those people are called illegal immigrants. Asylum seekers are the ones who find one of the increasingly few and difficult ways to actually enter the country and claim asylum.
Even the UK, which has a Hostile Environment policy for immigration, allowed 76% of asylum applications in 2022. If these applications weren't legitimate, they would have found a reason to refuse them. They would love to brag about it in Parliament.
It is a stretch to say that their motivation for protesting could never be relevant.
Not so long ago, we had protests which were illegal because the police refused to give them a permit. The protests were because a policeman had raped and killed a woman. The conduct of the police was simultaneously what made the protest illegal and also what they were protesting about.
In this case, the motivation is that the government is failing in its basic duty to protect the lives and future of its citizens (all of them), and it's the government that has passed legislation to make protest illegal.
A huge step towards dictatorship? Even Putin has to pretend to follow the law. This ruling would mean that there is no law that the US President has to follow. On top of that, they can also pardon anyone else of any federal crime. That isn't moving towards dictatorship, that's already despotism.
"how much of the data is the original data"?
Even if you could reverse the process perfectly, what you would prove is that something fed into the AI was identical to a copyrighted image. But the image's license isn't part of that data. The question is: did the license cover use as training data?
In the case of watermarked images, the answer is clearly no, so then the AI companies have to argue that only tiny parts of any given image come from any given source image, so it still doesn't violate the license. That's pretty questionable when waternarks are visible.
In these examples, it's clear that all parts of the image come directly or indirectly (perhaps some source images were memes based on the original) from the original, so there goes the second line of defence.
The fact that the quality is poor is neither here nor there. You can't run an image through a filter that adds noise and then say it's no longer copyrighted.
Very often it's not exactly the same criticism, and is just deflection - they are hoping to start arguing about whether the accuser's actions are equivalent, rather than whether their actions are objectively bad.
For example: A accuses B of allowing poor people to starve to death and B replies that if A cares so much about poor people, why does he want to put taxes up?
I was thinking that the land could be given in lieu of tax (like oil paintings are), but equally, the estate could sell the land to pay the tax directly, and the government could buy it. Or, like you say, the state could just use the money to rewild land that is already publicly owned. The problem with the proposed scheme is that the land remains in private hands, and the private landowners may try to un-re-wild it. I am thinking about Dartmoor there. Why would they want to own a tract of wild countryside, after all?